That’s the implication in this Washington Free Beacon article. As Alana Goodman portrays it, the Clintons not only dish out favors in return for money, but they know how to play the game the other way, too:

A little-known private foundation controlled by Bill and Hillary Clinton donated $100,000 to the New York Times’ charitable fund in 2008, the same year the newspaper’s editorial page endorsed Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary, according to tax documents reviewed by the Washington Free Beacon.

The Clinton Family Foundation, a separate entity from the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has been the family’s vehicle for personal charitable giving since 2001.

It is funded directly by the Clintons and distributes more than $1 million a year to civic and educational causes.

The New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is a charity affiliated with the newspaper that assists underprivileged New Yorkers. It is run by members of the New York Times Company’s board of directors and senior executives.

The Times’ editorial board endorsed Clinton against Democratic challengers John Edwards and Barack Obama on January 25, 2008, writing that she was “more qualified, right now, to be president.”

At the time, there were reports that the Times board had leaned toward endorsing Obama, but was overruled by then-chairman and publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., whose family controlled the paper. Sulzberger’s cousins and Times Company directors, Lynn Dolnick and Michael Golden, chaired the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund in 2008.

The Clinton Family Foundation did not list the specific date the donation was made in its public tax disclosure forms. Neither the Times nor a representative of the Clintons responded by press time to a request for comment. Clinton ended her presidential campaign on June 7, 2008.

The CFF’s $100,000 contribution to the New York Times Neediest Cases Fund is larger than its typical donations.

Of the 47 organizations the CFF donated to in 2008, only six groups received more than $50,000. Most received between $2,000 and $25,000. The CFF has not donated to the Neediest Cases Fund since 2008.

The Times endorsement was controversial at the time because there was speculation about whether it was swayed by pressure from the Clintons.

Just like all the favorable State Department decisions that came after foreign governments and business interests made big donations to the Clinton Foundation (or paid Bill for speeches), I’m sure this is all one big coincidence.

They apparently sent a crack (or is it “cracked”) investigative team out to look into the dark corners of Senator Rubio’s past to see what shameful secrets lurked within. What did they find? I… I almost can’t utter the words. Brace yourself, America.

According to a search of the Miami-Dade and Duval County court dockets, the Rubios have been cited for numerous infractions over the years for incidents that included speeding, driving through red lights and careless driving. A review of records dating back to 1997 shows that the couple had a combined 17 citations: Mr. Rubio with four and his wife with 13. On four separate occasions they agreed to attend remedial driving school after a violation.

Mr. Rubio’s troubles behind the wheel predate his days in politics. In 1997, when he was cited for careless driving by a Florida Highway Patrol officer, he was fined and took voluntary driving classes. A dozen years later, in 2009, he was ticketed for speeding on a highway in Duval County and found himself back in driver improvement school.

Things got more complicated in 2011 when Mr. Rubio was alerted to the fact that his license was facing suspension after a traffic camera caught him failing to stop at a red light in his beige Buick. His lawyer, Alex Hanna, paid a $16 fee to delay the suspension and eventually it was dismissed.

Yes, it’s true my friends: the race is over. Done. He has to withdraw now. Marco Rubio and his wife have a shared lead foot! Oh, the horror! I’m so glad the Times devoted the full weight of their journalistic prowess to uncover this scandal.

Like I said: Rubio must scare the tar out of the Times’ editors, if they’re desperate enough to run with this. Considering what the press did to Sarah Palin, I hope he has locks on his garbage cans.

Attkisson is an award-winning investigative journalist who spent roughly 20 years with CBS before leaving in 2014. For her determined pursuit of the truth and information government and corporate officials would rather keep hidden, she’s been called a “bulldog,” a term she regards as a compliment. While Stonewalled deals with the scandals and evasions of the Obama administration and its allies, Attkisson has a reputation as a bipartisan bulldog — a pain in the tuchus to Democrats and Republicans, alike. This is what a good journalist should be.

I’m about half-way through Stonewalled and, so far, it’s been equal parts enjoyable, infuriating, and even frightening. Before discussing scandals such as Fast and Furious and the Obamacare rollout, as well as the almost equally scandalous supine attitude of mainstream journalism toward the administration, Attkisson opens with the story of her discovery that her work and personal computers, and her phone, had been hacked by a government agency during her investigation into the Benghazi massacre. Though she hasn’t yet identified in the book who she believes is responsible, I’ll note that she has filed suit against the Department of Justice and the US Postal Service. Discovery, as they say should be interesting.

I’m reading her book in Kindle format; it’s also in soft (forthcoming) and hardcover. Regarding the Kindle edition, I’ve spotted just one lone typo and no formatting problems, which is very good for an e-book. Her writing style is straightforward, almost Hemingway-esque in its directness. If Ms. Attkisson reveals any ax to grind, it’s her firm belief that information paid for with taxpayer dollars belongs to the public, not the government.

I’ll post a review when I’ve finished.

PS: Why, yes. This is a shameless bit of shilling on my part. I like getting the occasional gift certificate that comes from people buying stuff via my link. Wouldn’t you?

Alarmists are busy recycling old debunked climate claims, in a desperate effort to build up momentum for the upcoming Paris climate conference.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald;

Glaciers in the Everest region could shrink at least 70 per cent or even disappear entirely by the end of the century as a result of climate change.

Researchers in Nepal, the Netherlands and France have studied weather patterns on the roof of the world and then created a model of conditions on Everest to determine the future impact of rising temperatures on its glaciers.

“The worst-case scenario shows a 99 per cent loss in glacial mass … but even if we start to slow down emissions somewhat, we may still see a 70 per cent reduction,” said Joseph Shea, who led the study.

Senator Cruz isn’t my first choice for the Republican nomination for president in 2016, though I’ll happily vote for him if he is. However, he gets an unqualified high-five from me for putting this shill for Democratic National Committee talking points in his place:

Pardon me a moment…

Few things tick me off more than the progressive Left’s hypocrisy on women and Gay rights: silently ignoring the hideous abuse both suffer under Islam while creating fake controversies here at home.

I swear by all that’s holy, I am so sick of the Left branding any criticism of their policies or philosophy as “sexist,” “racist,” “homophobic,” or whatever that I nearly break out in a rash when it happens these days. It demonstrates their barrel-scarping intellectual bankruptcy that they have to resort to smears, since their ideas have long since been shown to be miserable failures. And it’s not just the loony Left engaging in these nauseating campaigns, but supposedly respectable people and institutions.

The latest is The New York Times, which has an error-filled editorial accusing the Republicans of, naturally, racism in their opposition to President Obama, the latest case being criticism (1) of the nuclear “deal” with Iran. Here’s an excerpt:

It is a line of attack that echoes Republicans’ earlier questioning of Mr. Obama’s American citizenship. Those attacks were blatantly racist in their message — reminding people that Mr. Obama was black, suggesting he was African, and planting the equally false idea that he was secretly Muslim. The current offensive is slightly more subtle, but it is impossible to dismiss the notion that race plays a role in it.

Perhaps the most outrageous example of the attack on the president’s legitimacy was a letter signed by 47 Republican senators to the leadership of Iran saying Mr. Obama had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Try to imagine the outrage from Republicans if a similar group of Democrats had written to the Kremlin in 1986 telling Mikhail Gorbachev that President Ronald Reagan did not have the authority to negotiate a nuclear arms deal at the Reykjavik summit meeting that winter.

This is such bull-waste that I think I should have put on my hip waders before reading it.

Joel Pollack of Breitbart has a point by point rebuttal of this farce. Here’s what he has to say about the above quote on questioning Obama’s citizenship:

Another attempt to rewrite history. The first questions about Obama’s citizenship, and the first attacks on his faith, came directly from the Hillary Clinton camp in 2008. (2) No doubt the Times feels uncomfortable acknowledging that fact on the day that Hillary Clinton announces her new run for the presidency. The fact that a fringe of the GOP later embraced the Birther movement did not change the fact that it started with Clinton, nor make it the basis for Republican opposition.

Then, regarding the Republican open letter to the Iranian leadership, authored by Senator Cotton (R-AR)

The charge of racism is ridiculous, made more so by the example the Times chose. The Times also distorts the content of the letter. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and his colleagues did not say Obama “had no authority to conclude negotiations.” It said he shared that authority with Congress, such that any agreement he did conclude would only be an “executive agreement” and would not be binding on future presidents. The fact that the Times has to lie about the letter is telling.

…The difference between Reykjavik and Lausanne is that Reagan was willing to walk away from talks at Reykjavik! And the fact is that Democrats in Congress undertook many actions that undermined President Reagan and other Republican presidents. There were Ted Kennedy’s overtures to the Soviets, John Kerry’s outreach to the Sandinistas, Nancy Pelosi’s coddling of Assad, and other examples. Does the Times really want to go there? No problem!

Read the rest to see the Times’ editorial thoroughly dismantled.

So, in the effort to support the president’s policies and convince people that they should support Democrats, all America’s once-premier newspaper has left are lies and slanders.

Pathetic.

Footnote:
(1) Odd that there’s no mention of the strong resistance from Democrats, such as Senators Menendez and Schumer. Are they racists, too, O editorial board?
(2) So, the likely 2016 Democratic nominee is racist, n’est-ce pas?